the effects perceived by him in his dream such as being bitten by a snake, bathing in a river, &c. to be unreal, but he does not on that account consider the consciousness he had of them to be unreal likewise.—­(We remark in passing that) by this fact of the consciousness of the dreaming person not being sublated (by the waking consciousness) the doctrine of the body being our true Self is to be considered as refuted[283].—­Scripture also (in the passage, ’If a man who is engaged in some sacrifice undertaken for some special wish sees in his dream a woman, he is to infer therefrom success in his work’) declares that by the unreal phantom of a dream a real result such as prosperity may be obtained.  And, again, another scriptural passage, after having declared that from the observation of certain unfavourable omens a man is to conclude that he will not live long, continues ’if somebody sees in his dream a black man with black teeth and that man kills him,’ intimating thereby that by the unreal dream-phantom a real fact, viz. death, is notified.—­It is, moreover, known from the experience of persons who carefully observe positive and negative instances that such and such dreams are auspicious omens, others the reverse.  And (to quote another example that something true can result from or be known through something untrue) we see that the knowledge of the real sounds A. &c. is reached by means of the unreal written letters.  Moreover, the reasons which establish the unity of the Self are altogether final, so that subsequently to them nothing more is required for full satisfaction[284].  An injunction as, for instance, ’He is to sacrifice’ at once renders us desirous of knowing what is to be effected, and by what means and in what manner it is to be effected; but passages such as, ‘Thou art that,’ ‘I am Brahman,’ leave nothing to be desired because the state of consciousness produced by them has for its object the unity of the universal Self.  For as long as something else remains a desire is possible; but there is nothing else which could be desired in addition to the absolute unity of Brahman.  Nor can it be maintained that such states of consciousness do not actually arise; for scriptural passages such as, ‘He understood what he said’ (Ch.  Up.  VII, 18, 2), declare them to occur, and certain means are enjoined to bring them about, such as the hearing (of the Veda from a teacher) and the recital of the sacred texts.  Nor, again, can such consciousness be objected to on the ground either of uselessness or of erroneousness, because, firstly, it is seen to have for its result the cessation of ignorance, and because, secondly, there is no other kind of knowledge by which it could be sublated.  And that before the knowledge of the unity of the Self has been reached the whole real-unreal course of ordinary life, worldly as well as religious, goes on unimpeded, we have already explained.  When, however, final authority having intimated the unity of the Self, the entire course of the world which was founded on the previous distinction is sublated, then there is no longer any opportunity for assuming a Brahman comprising in itself various elements.